Is there any legal justification for the US attack on Venezuela?
International law experts expect Washington to claim self-defence and face little serious pushback
The more we talk about that, the less we talk about how the President is a pedophile rapist, human trafficker, and murderer.
There are things more important sometimes.
But yes, the child trafficking US president deserves to be thrown in jail for life.
more important
Idk if the Epstein files are more important than the Venezuela invasion, literally. But I think it's more foundationally important.
What I mean by this is that the Epstein files show definitively that trump is a criminal with evidence of child rape and whatever other financial crimes. This means he is an illegitimately elected president, should never have been allowed to assume office legally and should be in prison. The evidence is in the Epstein files.
If this is true, which it is, the decisions he's been making, including Venezuela should never have happened.
By law the Epstein files were supposed to be released, and they haven't been. The DOJ and trump are hiding the evidence. Rule of law and our DOJ aren't working as designed.
Personally I think the Epstein fiasco is still the most important as it means trump shouldn't even be here doing all this stuff right now.
We’re not supposed to talk about the US kidnapping a leader of a sovereign nation?
I think we can walk and chew gum.
Redirecting every criticism to some other thing is exactly how flooding the zone is supposed to work.
Well done.
...con man, misogynist, fat piece of shit, failed businessman, racist, deathly sick, fraudster, incontinent, criminal... yes, each time he adds a new adjective describing his actions or how disgusting of a person he is we talk less about the previous.
Maybe we just start requiring "etc." on any list.
I hear he also smells like shit.
So oppressed with the Epstein files that well do absolutely knowing you want us to ignore what is happening now. The us invaded a sovereign country and is taking it over.
"No"
No fucking chance. Will someone please delete Cheeto in chief
From now on, I’m calling the paedophile in chief the Turbulent Priest. Maybe someone will solve it.
On the plus side, this fucker has given me a reason to live. I am now determined to outlive him out of spite.
I hope you'll find hate-happiness
If the US faces no consequences for the invasion of Venezuela, experts believe it could embolden other countries to carry out operations which may contravene international law.
“The most obvious consequence is that China will take the opportunity to invade Taiwan,” Robertson said. “This is the most appropriate time for it to do so, bolstered by the precedent of Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and of course his appeasement of Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. In fact, I would say that Trump’s invasion of Venezuela is the crime of aggression, the same crime Putin has committed by invading Ukraine.”
funny how this works - the media has an opportunity to call out the US for being a piece of shit and yet they pivot to “yeah but what if (insert communist nation here)”
capitalism will do anything to keep it from criticizing itself.
If only you read as far as the 4th paragraph of the article...
The experts the Guardian spoke to agreed that the US is likely to have violated the terms of the UN charter, which was signed in October 1945 and designed to prevent another conflict on the scale of the second world war. A central provision of this agreement – known as article 2(4) – rules that states must refrain from using military force against other countries and must respect their sovereignty.
Geoffrey Robertson KC, a founding head of Doughty Street Chambers and a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, said the attack on Venezuela was contrary to article 2(4) of the charter. “The reality is that America is in breach of the United Nations charter,” he added. “It has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime, it’s the worst crime of all.”
Elvira Domínguez-Redondo, a professor of international law at Kingston University, described the operation as a “crime of aggression and unlawful use of force against another country”. Susan Breau, a professor of international law and a senior associate research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, agreed that the attack could have only been considered lawful if the US had a resolution from the UN security council or was acting in self-defence. “There is just no evidence whatsoever on either of those fronts,” Breau said.
The only country who might be emboldened by this is the fucking US itself, to start yet another conflict, just like they always do.
Oh no the country that hasn't even been involved in a conflict in 50 years might invade!1! Never mind the country that's been invading, bombing, couping, and backing terrorists and war criminals non-stop for like, most of its existence.
No and both Schumer and Jefferies appear to be complicit, at least via the bird site.
They're going to ask politely for a vote in Congress to give Trump permission to be fascist. And when the request for the vote is ignored, they're going to diligently line up to support the next NDAA funding measure that made this criminal act possible while shaking their heads to let you know they don't like how it is being used.
That seems to be the thrust of their criticism. No problem with the action, simply disappointed that he didn't ask for permission.
Utterly worthless, and the both of them need to be replaced, 9 months ago when they demonstrated their inability to meet the moment
$5 says they also increase military budget while fundraising off Trump invading. Just like any other time him or gop do something terrible
Yes, they totally fucking suck. Now let's talk about the real issue, our pedo prez just invaded a country, took the preseident and his wife and are now threatening to do that to a lot of other countries for their oil money. Can we focus on that right now?
Ah yes. Let's ideate on a person we have no control or influence over instead of people in political power whom we do have a degree of influence over. Surely spinning our tires over how bad Trump is instead of focusing pressure on, at least allegedly, politically aligned individuals we might be able to make demands of.
Shouting into the void about 'Trump' bad instead of focusing criticism where it might make a difference is a better strategy.
We get it. "Orange man bad", but Schumer's and Jefferies basically supporting this is actually worse because they are litterally the only tools we have at our disposal to stop him.
Thank you.
One issue is the dems response is either positive or saying trump needed to let them vote to authorize, as the dems say they would have voted for it and are only upset for not telling congress not attacking another country. Just like when he attacked Iran.
Are you saying......right now......that the BIRD BIRD BIRD! BIRD IS THE WORD! BABABABA BIRD BIRD BIRD, BIRD IS THE WORD!!!
PapapapapapapapapapapaPAPAPAPA
PAPA OO MOW MOW PAPA OO MOW MA MOW
WHERE THE FUCK IS CONGRESS!?!
They're on extended break because they didn't want to be forced into publicly voting against extending health care credits.
Busy masturbating with dildos made of money in every orifice. And then inventing new orifices.
Saying he needed to wait for them to give the approval first. Not upset it happened but that he didn't let them say yes first just like when he attacked Iran and they were only upset they didn't get to vote yes before bombs were dropped
No
No.
No. Now where are the Epstein files?
Found one!
Not true, this one is properly redacted
Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army.
No. Asking the question only serves to normalize this behavior.
“You would have to prove those drug traffickers were threatening the sovereignty of the United States,” Breau added. “The United States is going to argue vigorously that drug trafficking is a scourge and it’s killing many people, and I agree. But a lot of international law experts have been looking at this and there wasn’t even clear evidence that those drug traffickers were from Venezuela, let alone that they were governed by Maduro in any sense.”
It would be interesting if their incompetent MAGA prosecutors fail to convict Maduro in whatever kangaroo court they drag him through.
No. Easy question.
No.
Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
No.
if you answer to no one, i mean there is literally no one who can realistically punish you and you also have no morale, then you just do whatever you want, you don't need justification.
I'd rather he'd do it to Russia. I think both Trump and Maduro are despicable evil people, but if we're seeing deterioration of international laws already, I'd rather watch Putin being arrested and Russia to be put under western control. But of course, Trump won't bite the hand that allegedly feeds him.
Edit:typo
Why even contemplate this when he rolled out a red carpet for him only a few months ago?
Maduro is not a despicable person. Maduro is not an illegitimate leader. The Bolivarian revolution was widely supported among the people of Venezuela and freed millions from poverty, until USA sanctions demolished their economy. The express purpose of USA sanctioning, according to the US government is to, and I quote, "bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government". USA+EU sanctions additionally murder half a million innocents per year according to recent serious sociologic and medical studies.
By defending regime change under extreme economic sanctioning, you're approving the murders of 38 million people over the past 50 years of economic sanctions, and directly supporting the CIA strategy of "impoverish them until they change their minds".
Who knows, who cares. It’s all staring to feel pretty hopeless
Duh, Pete Hegseth is legally required to distract you from President Pedophile being named in the pedophile documents.
No justification to attack a sovereign nation
Maduro and Trump are friends
Maduro gets to escape his country and save face instead of being assassinated or executed.
Trump gets to manufacture a conflict so he can start martial law and become a dictator, and to distract from us learning he came inside little girls.
Maduro and Trump are friends
Where does this braindead take come from? Is this maga or bluemaga bullshit?
.ml
Blocked
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooo.
No.
The pretext Trump used for the war was that Venezuela is flooding the US with fentanyl.
Venezuela doesn't produce fent and it's not a significant trans-shipment source. The actual sources are US pharma companies and China.
I believe that international law frowns on starting imperialist wars of aggression on the basis of lies. And, just as the war is an attempt to deflect attention from the Trump-Epstein files, so is the war on drugs lie a deflection from the real reason for the invasion, which is to enrich US oil companies.
hint: no. no there is not.
It's not legal, but there is a lot of precedent for it, which usually defines law. Presidents haven't declared war since the Korean war, so all of those military engagements weren't acts of war since because we said so (but they still are).
Now, before we started ignoring declaring war, we still ignored "the law" frequently since at least the early 1900s maybe earlier. And, of course, we were founded by law breaking. So, breaking the law is a long American tradition.
I'm gunna be honest: I don't really give a fuck if it was legal or not; it was wrong. It's wrong to mutate the histories, identities, and fates of other nations and it always opens a portal to new monsters. Venezuala's problems are Venezuala's to solve and grow and learn from. If Canada sent JTF-2 to kidnap Trump and his inner inner circle while they're visiting Africa or some shit, pretty sure every fucking American would be upset about that, and most Canadians, though momentarily relieved, would fear the reckoning. The US's leadership is foolish to not fear the reckoning because they think they're untouchable. Foolish. At this point it would be a "who shot Mr Burns" situation.
Venezuela's problems aren't even Venezuela's to solvd, their problem is an economic embargo by the USA, how are they supposed to solve that?
Well, Petey Kegsbreath said they were f'ing around. That sounds kind of lawyer-y, doesn't it?
Of course there isn’t. Posing the question is doing the work to help Trump normalize it.
There’s no major media left that will deal in reality.
Nope
Yes, technically it's known as Might Makes Right, or We Have The Bigger Stick. Very similar to Give Me Your Lunch Money or I'll Beat You Up.
Ok, then do tramp and elon next.
Is wine beer? Do bears read Nietzsche? Did Epstein kill himself?
It's asking the obvious. The answer is yes.
I was joking, it's clearly NO duh